Challenging homosexual Catholics who dissent from the Church’s teaching

By Deacon Nick Donnelly, on August 2nd, 2011

Following yesterday’s post, ‘The scandal of priests queering the Church in Miami, Rome and London,’ it seems right that we should look at the ideology of homosexuality that is threatening our religious freedom and corrupting sections of the Church.

Here’s an extract from the newly published and expanded memoirs of Cardinal Giacomo Biffi.

“The ideology of homosexuality – as often happens to ideologies when they become aggressive and end up being politically triumphant – becomes a threat to our legitimate autonomy of thought: those who do not share it risk condemnation to a kind of cultural and social marginalization.

The attacks on freedom of thought start with language. Those who do not resign themselves to accept “homophilia” (the theoretical appreciation of homosexual relations) are charged with “homophobia” (etymologically, the “fear of homosexuality”). This must be very clear: those who are made strong by the inspired word and live in the “fear of God” are not afraid of anything, except perhaps the stupidity toward which, Bonhoeffer said, we are defenseless.

The essential problem that presents itself is this: is it still permitted in our days to be faithful and consistent disciples of the teaching of Christ (which for millennia has inspired and enriched the whole of Western civilization), or must we prepare ourselves for a new form of persecution, promoted by homosexual activists, by their ideological accomplices, and even by those whose task it should be to defend the intellectual freedom of all, including Christians?

There is one question that we ask in particular of the theologians, biblicists, and pastoralists. Why on earth, ..is the Pauline passage of Romans 1:21-32 never cited by anyone? Why on earth is there not a little more concern to make it known to believers and nonbelievers, in spite of its evident timeliness?

‘Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done.’ (Rom 1:27-28).

Here’s an example of the homosexual ideology promoted by Catholics seeking to queer the Church in London. After the Papal visit, Terry Weldon of the SMPC wrote a piece on his ‘Queering the Church’ blog claiming that the visit by Pope Benedict strengthened the position of ‘progressive’ i.e. dissenting Catholics. Weldon seized on Archbishop Nichols’ scandalous public support for the Soho Masses to justify this position.

Weldon states “This recognition of Catholic diversity benefits thoughtful and progressive Catholics, and correspondingly weakens the position of rule-book Catholics who expect simple blind obedience to the Catechism.

I believe that UK progressive Catholics generally, and gay Catholics in particular, have good reason to feel their position has been strengthened by the visit, and especially by some statements of Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who is the head of the church in England and Wales. In a series of interviews before and after the visit, he has said that the primary characteristic of a Catholic is not blind obedience to Church authority, but a conscientious search for the truth.

With specific reference to the Soho LGBT Masses, he insisted that it is not for the priest to judge the conscience of anyone presenting for communion. In a clear reference to regular protesters outside, he suggested that they “hold their tongues” – in effect, they should shut the f*** up [Weldon's offensive interpretation of Archbishop Nichol's words]“.

Archbishop Nichols was informed about this outrageous statement by Weldon, but as usual, he declined to comment, and Weldon is still an Extraordinary Minister at the Soho Masses.

Protect the Pope comment: As the first anniversary of Pope Benedict’s visit to the UK approaches has the Holy Father been informed that active homosexual Catholics see his visit as a watershed in the promotion of their agenda?

And if he asks why has this tragic state of affairs come about will anyone tell him that it’s as a consequence of Archbishop Nichol’s criticism of loyal and faithful Catholics who object to the queering of the Church in London? Is there anyone with the courage to tell the Holy Father the truth, or will we all carry on with the charade?

35 comments to Challenging homosexual Catholics who dissent from the Church’s teaching

If the church is being “queered” then it entirely has itself to blame. It isn’t as if gay rights activists or evil secularists are forcing the Archbishop to say particular things or forcing the church to hold the Soho masses. Archbishop Nichols or the Pope himself could close down the soho mass and throw out all the gay priests and excommunicate all the gay activists. They choose not to do that. That may or may not be the right decision on their part, but they must claim responsibility for their own actions and inactions. With leadership comes responsibility.

I love the Holy Father. But to be honest, by now, I think it’s likely that he knows about this stuff. Countless people have written to Rome about it. And still nothing has happened. I wonder if we’re on our own… (with the Lord of course). May God strengthen the Holy Father.

Thanks for your answer. I don’t think it is an incredible question. I am just a non-Catholic trying to understand why the Catholic church seems to find these issues of what is essentially “corporate management” harder to deal with than other organisations.

Your answer begs another question. If the Pope knows what is going on why did he leave this island last September praising our bishops and saying that the Church here is in strong condition? How can you support a Pope who in your own words says things that are “patent nonsense”?

Seems to be that what you say makes sense in theory, but in practice isn’t it is an arrangement that allows the posibility that you will be unable to sack a Pope who is so poor a manager that we threatens to bring down the church.

Unfortunately, I believe no action has not been taken by bishops because they are dealing with a true mafia. The members of the lavender mafia in the Church probably have compromising information about people in the hierarchy (not necessarily of a homosexual nature), and are threatening to disclose this if anyone dares to challenge their lavish lifestyle at our expense. While I have no proof for this, this does seem like a very likely explanation.

wow, I hadn’t thought of that. Of course that explanation only makes sense if you think that there are a large proportion of people in the hieracy who would be affraid of discloure. Are you really suggesting that the Church is riddled with bad priests? If so you have a lower opinion of the priesthood than I do. Surely most priests are decent hard-working people.

Here’s something that Philip Trower, in “Turmoil and Truth”, had to say about the Paul-VI-initiated “policy of teaching and giving warnings, while refraining (except in one instance) from disciplining or punishing”:

‘Explaining the new policy over a decade and a half ago, the then secretary of a Roman congregation (now the cardinal prefect of a different one), told the author that, rather than condemning errors, the Holy See today preferred to “swamp errors with truth,” or in the words of John Paul II to André Frossard, allow “error to destroy itself.” This is simply an extension of Pope John’s principle “it is better to use the means of mercy than of condemnation.” Most Catholics thought Pope John was talking about its use at the Council. They did not realize the principle would continue to be applied more or less indefinitely. However, Cardinal Ratzinger has thrown the clearest light on the origins of the new policy in his “Principles of Catholic Theology.” After speaking of the “great tension and turmoil” in the Church, of the demand by many of the faithful for “a clear drawing of lines,” and the inability of “the Pope and bishops as yet to decide in favour of such an action,” he attributes it to “the resentment that has grown up in the last half century because of innumerable faulty decisions, and above all because of the too narrow handling of Church discipline (in the past),” a resentment he describes as “like an inward-growing boil on the ecclesial conscience” that “has created an allergy to condemnation, from which we can more readily expect an increase of the ill than its cure.” As to whether truth will succeed in swamping error in the long run, the cardinal confines himself to the cautious statement “we shall have to see whether…this approach to discipline in matters of doctrine can serve as a model for the future.”

Well with all due respect to the then Cardinal Prefect of the CDF and the now present Holy Father….can we now have an unequivocal critique of the ‘approach to discipline’ and condemn it for all the ecclesial misery it has brought and pain to countless souls?

I do not believe that there is a Mafia within the Church, it sounds like a conspiracy theory and there are no proofs. As a born and bread Italian, I can testify that the number of Italian dissenting priests is low. The Panorama article seemed to be another smear campaign. None of the Italian priests I worked with or met were in any way dissenting from the teachings of the Church. It is another state of affairs in England (where I have lived half of my life, I am also a British citizen). The protestant spirit has infiltrated the Catholic Church and it is easy to find parishioners or priests who would like to be Popes themselves or better decide for themselves what is good and what is bad with little attention to what Jesus Christ himself preached or did (The Tablet being the supreme example of this trend). I have recently read a biography of Pope Benedict. He is a deeply intelligent man. He is aware that with some people you need the stick, with others you need the carrot. He tackles dissent by addressing modern heresies (one of them being the cult of homosexuality as a ‘God given right’) by proving them wrong in an intellectual and sophisticated manner. He is not to blame for the pockets of dissent that were largely born in the 1960s-70s that still continue today. Equally, I KNOW that Archbishop Vincent Nichols has halped several people with same sex attraction to overcome their problems (some of them are now straight and with children). Yet, Nichols’ attitude towards dissent seems soft when he is interviewed by media, but in reality it is just a way of tackling dissent. It is not assent. That does not mean I agree with Nichols’ tactics – in fact I don’t, as they leave people confused.

“Equally,I KNOW that Archbishop Vincent Nichols has halped several people with same sex attraction to overcome their problems (some of them are now straight and with children”

would it not be a great service to truth and the Church if these individuals were to bear testimony to this claim [albeit anonymously if necessary] and to show the fact that our shepherds believe [perhaps] in one thing but then for political expediency do another?

Yes homosexuals who use their priesthood or diaconate as a platform for particular ideologies should, if they persist after one warning, be removed from their office
and excluded from any future consideration for church ministry. The Church has to be hard on this, the discipleship of Jesus entails and requires dedicated and
unrelenting self-sacrifice and self-discipline, just as Love does in all our relationships. Progressives have now discredited themselves for their provocative
propagandizing and ‘in your face’ squealing. I suggest that Terry Weldon be removed forthwith from his role of Extraordinary Minister.

Sorry about the length of this comment, but I think your readers need to see it. It was written by a layman in Westminster Diocese in response to Archbishop Bernard Longley’s public criticism of those who pray in reparation outside the notorious Soho ‘gay’ Masses, and was made public on-line earlier this year. Archbishop Nichols received a copy. WARNING: It contains links to pornography and also crude language:-

December 14th 2010
Dear Archbishop Longley,

You may recall that I corresponded with you at some length prior to, and after the transition of the ‘Soho Masses’ to the Church of Our Lady of the Assumption & St Gregory at Warwick Street. I have just read your interview in this week’s Tablet. Just for the record, I am not one of those who stand outside the Masses and pray in reparation (please note: pray not protest – a misleading term which both yourself and Elena Curti used during the course of the interview), although I am fully supportive of those who do go there to pray in reparation.

I am so very sorry that you have once again given a false impression about the agenda of those who founded and continue to run the Soho Masses – specifically this quote: “The Church does not, as it were, have a moral means-testing of people before they come to receive the sacraments and it is very easy to jump to and come to the wrong conclusions about people when you don’t know them”. I think both you and I know that nobody is jumping to any wrong conclusions about the Soho Masses Pastoral Council and its followers, as many of them freely and openly admit that they either (a) oppose Catholic teaching on homosexuality (b) are known members of dissident homosexual organisations (c) practice their sexuality, or (d) have entered into civil partnerships, and in one case (that of a Eucharistic Minister and a Reader at the Soho Masses, Tee Earls and Troy Kaser) have undergone a ‘marriage’ ceremony in America. See:- http://kingfriday.co.uk/boston-wedding-plan-details (this website link has since been removed).

I fail to see how you could have remained unaware of the open dissent of this group, which was comprised of members of the dissident Roman Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement, but started using the title Soho Masses Pastoral Council for the Warwick Street Masses, particularly in view of all the irrefutable evidence that I sent to you at the time. I understand that you met with Martin Pendergast prior to the Masses moving to Warwick Street – and I cannot believe that you would be unaware of his history of dissent, as he has been publicly opposing Catholic teaching on homosexuality for decades. I also cannot believe that you would be unaware that he has entered into a civil partnership with Julian Filochowski, as this has been widely reported. Such an action goes against the 2003 Vatican document on homosexual unions, and Martin Pendergast publicly called on Pope Benedict XVI to apologise for that document – see here:-http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/aug/19/catholic-gay-adoption-victory-vulnerable-children Martin also frequently (and erroneously) publicly states that Church teaching on homosexuality is not binding on the faithful. Do you think that Martin and Julian are in “good standing with the Church”?

Members of the SMPC wrote the following about their negotiations for the Soho Masses with you in ‘Pink News’:- http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/01/new-archbishop-of-birmingham-helped-organise-gay-masses :- Martin Pendergast said:- “I can assure others who have commented that there was no demand on us to ‘remain celibate and agree that homosexual acts are wrong’ ” and also Terence Weldon (Eucharistic Minister and SMPC committee member) said:- “I agree with my friend and colleague Martin (above) who notes that during the extensive consultation process around the Soho gay Masses, Bishop Longley at no time expressed any demand that we remain celibate or agree with Church teaching”. How do you square your silence with the teaching found in the 1986 CDF document encouraging the bishops to do the following:-

“We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin. We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve. . . ”

” . . . All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous. . . ”

Not a few have publicly made the point that homosexuals who strive to be chaste and conform to the teachings of the Church wouldn’t be seen anywhere near the Soho Masses.

Whenever members of the Soho Masses Pastoral Council or attendees of the Mass have made public statements – even very recently – they have either openly rejected the teaching of the Church on homosexuality or openly declared that they are partnered, practising homosexuals. I don’t want to overburden you with evidence, but if you wish, I can point you to many internet articles and magazine articles to prove my point – and I think you know full well that I would be able to do that. If you wish to see all the evidence that has been garnered over the years, then please let me know and I will happily send it to you. Not once have I ever known anyone connected with the Soho Masses to publicly state that they fully and unequivocally support Catholic teaching on homosexuality, but there are plenty of instances of their open dissent.

One serious instance that I will put before you is that of Terence Weldon, who is on the SMPC Committee as a Eucharistic Minister and he also arranges the rotas for the Eucharistic Ministers and Readers at the Soho Masses. He runs several ‘gay’ blogs, but the most regularly updated one is called ‘Queering the Church’ http://queering-the-church.com/blog Weldon has openly confessed to being a partnered, practising homosexual who vigorously opposes Church teaching on homosexuality. His blog frequently contains homoerotic pictures, blasphemous pictures and words, and four-letter words.
Things recently took an even more sinister turn on this blog. Weldon wrote an article on December 10th titled ‘Building Sexual Theology From the Ground Up’ http://queering-the-church.com/blog/theology/gay-lesbian-theology/building-sexual-theology-from-the-ground-up In this article he promotes another blog ‘Enhanced Masculinity’ by someone called Paul Robert. Weldon states:- “We are all familiar with the established, restrictive views on human sexuality espoused by the Vatican. In my writing on queer faith, I have often expressed views that some find controversial – but my regular readers generally find more helpful. Some gay Catholics, and some priests, have been led to conclusions even more provocative than my own. One such is “Paul Robert”, who describes himself at his site Enhanced Masculinity (http://enhancedmasculinity.blogspot.com ) as a Catholic “priest trying to put together a new theology of male homosexuality”. His tone and style are markedly different to mine, but there is a fundamental point of theological agreement here: in the absence of any realistic sexual ethics taught by the nominally celibate men of the Vatican, we have no choice but to find our own path, and build a meaningful framework for sexual ethics from the ground up.”

Paul Robert posted the following words on his blog on December 12th:- [removed because its too obscene to be posted on Protect the Pope] The blog is full of hardcore homosexual pornographic pictures. I strongly urge you not to go into it, unless you want to prove what I am saying.

Archbishop Longley, you surely must be able to see the diabolical element in all this – why on earth would Terence Weldon want to bring such blasphemous filth to the attention of others? Although Weldon acknowledges that Paul Robert’s blog is ‘not for the faint-hearted’ he certainly doesn’t voice any disapproval of the material found on the blog. Do you seriously think Weldon should be allowed to distribute the Body and Blood of Christ to others, or be on a Committee which runs these Masses? I have asked Archbishop Nichols this question, but as usual, got no reply.

With all this evidence, what can one say? It isn’t so much about making assumptions about other people, as taking them at their word. If they openly say that they don’t accept the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, and if they openly admit to being in civil partnerships and ‘gay marriages’, and if they openly admit to practising their sexuality, why should anyone disbelieve them? It would be irrational to do so. It is irrational that you continue to make excuses for them, in spite of all the evidence available. By voicing your continued scandalous support for what is occurring at Warwick Street, you have utterly betrayed homosexuals who struggle to lead chaste lives in accordance with the teaching of the Church – and not just homosexuals, but all people who struggle, sometimes heroically, to keep the moral teachings of the Church. I think we both know that the only struggle going on at Warwick Street is the struggle to overthrow Church teaching and maintain an environment where people can parade their dissent and never be challenged. You should be ashamed of yourself for enabling such a situation.

“Corporate management”????? The Church is not a firm !!!
I can’t understand you when you say that the Pope is not dealing with it
If a priest should even have an intercourse just once, the Bishop HAS to let him GO. Let alone attending gay parties…
There are very few priests who break the rules and those are immediately asked to leave, of course the Church is ready to help them in any way but they can’t be priests any longer.
So what’s the point? I still don’t understand what many of you think the Pope should be doing.
He can’t ring the doorbell at a priest in Miami and ask him to give up priesthood,that is obvious! But the Bishop can and will do that !
It’s all black and white !
So what’s the point?

“If a priest should even have an intercourse just once,the Bishop HAS to let him GO. Let alone attending gay parties…
There are very few priests who break the rules and those are immediately asked to leave..”

with all due respect fd what planet are you living on.
1. if a priest commits infidelity and breaks his vows [just like an adulterer] he doesn’t leave the priesthood nor woul;d he be made to leave by his bishop [supposing it was public knowledge] No – he repents, seeks absolution and commits to never mortally sinning again just like the rest of us

and even if a priest [as not an insignificant number do] is living a double life, remaining in the ministry, having a mistress or ‘gay’ sexual partner[s] and it’s not known or perhaps suspected by the bishop then he still won’t be made to leave the priestghood. the bishop might issue ‘might??’ issue warnings for him to put his house in order, may even send him away on leave of absenmce or go in to extremely expensive therapy [all borne by the mass going Catholics] and there is still no guarantee that the issues will be resolved

at best – a priest may voluntraily choose to leave for reasons of moral certitiude that he feels he cannot continue in the priesthood anymore and fair enough and most bishops will support hikm in seeking laicisation [which for the common good of the faithful is always the better soltuion]
but far far too many priests live double lives and remain undetected or quietly ignored in their duplicitous lifestyles because they won’t leave or are too cowardly to leave because it’s a very cushy number financially… no mortgage, no boss making sure you produce results 9-5, no bills each week or month to fret over, no pension or retirement worries and no kids [thst we know of??] to provide maintenance for……

the cong for clergy has brpought in a new rule allowing bishops to force a priest to leave after voluntarily not exercising his priesthood for 5 years or more but that still doesn’t go far enough nor do many bishops enforce the canonical privilege they have been given by Rome – e.g Fr Michael O’Flaherty of the Galway diocese for one.

Apologies – in the above post, two of the links have been updated:- see below for correct links:-

“One serious instance that I will put before you is that of Terence Weldon,who is on the SMPC Committee as a Eucharistic Minister and he also arranges the rotas for the Eucharistic Ministers and Readers at the Soho Masses. He runs several ‘gay’ blogs,but the most regularly updated one is called ‘Queering the Church’ http://queeringthechurch.com Weldon has openly confessed to being a partnered,practising homosexual who vigorously opposes Church teaching on homosexuality. His blog frequently contains homoerotic pictures,blasphemous pictures and words,and four-letter words.
Things recently took an even more sinister turn on this blog. Weldon wrote an article on December 10th titled ‘Building Sexual Theology From the Ground Up’ http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/12/10/building-sexual-theology-from-the-ground-up “

Please ignore EditorCT rantings on the second Vatican Council and other issues…. she is not actually a Roman Catholic of good standing but a well known extremist-Sedevacante. This self appointed anti-pope is in conflict with Rome and The Holy Father on almost every Catholic teaching. Her negative and hysterical contributions to these conversations are not helpful.
Thank You

I found her comments helpful (despite not agreeing with them all) and didin;t think thatthey were neagtive or hysterial. In fact they were more polite and less-hysterical than some other posts (including, on occassion some of mine)

Dominic: where is your evidence for the outrageous calumnies you have posted here regarding Pat McKeever? I will answer the question myself: you have none, and I therefore demand that you publicly withdraw your ludicrous statements, every single one of which is an outright lie.

For heaven’s sake Editor CT, you really do have a tendency to fly of the handle and throw around all kinds of accusations. I have published every comment I have received from you. I even checked the trash to make sure I hadn’t deleted one by accident. So please do not read anything into the fact that one of your comments has gone astray through no fault of mine. Again with the accusations, my name is made public on the page introducing the website, but just to be clear its Deacon Nick Donnelly, Diocese of Lancaster. Like I wrote in my first reply to you, you seem to be on a bit of a hair trigger. I will remove your name. Sorry about that, an over-sight on my part.

No Nicolas. No reply was ever received. After that letter was made public, people wrote and complained to Archbishop Longley, and his secretary replied to some of them, giving misleading information. The gist of the reply was that all was well with the Soho Masses, they were run according to the norms laid down in the 1986 CDF document on homosexuality (if only!) and that Archbishop Longley no longer had any responsibility for any goings-on in Westminster.

Terry Weldon’s public homosexual fantasising (Queering the Church blog) wouldn’t be so much of a problem if he weren’t an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist in the Westminster diocese – with Archbishop Nichols’ full knowledge and approval.

Pat, that stuff is just horrendous although I have read it somewhere else but it always shocks, no matter how often I read about these “queering the Church” people. How unbelievable that bishops are working with them to homosexualise the Church in England and worse, that Rome is adding to the problem by not acting to sort this scandal out.

Deacon Nick, I don’t understand what’s “fine” with EditorCT. You were pretty harsh with her in your post at 6.51 on 5th August so I don’t get it. What’s she done that’s fine so soon after you wiped the floor with her?

Nicholas Bellord I disagree that Archbishop Longley is relieved to have escapted Birmingham and that is why he is burying his head in the sand. For some reason, both he and Archbishop Nichols are keen to help the “gays” and I think we need to face that fact and not go looking for excuses for them.

Editor CT, Yesterday I presided at a Christening, gave a speech at my father’s 80th birthday party, and now I’m sorting out with my wife the admission of my mother-in-law to hospital because she became ill in the night. I moderate this site because I have received disgusting comments abut me, the catholic Church and Pope Benedict. If you don’t like Protect the Pope don’t post on it. No one is forcing you.

Thanks Tim for your concern. Yesterday was an ordeal for my mum in law and the family. We were faced with giving consent for surgery that had a high risk of her dying. There was a 1 in 5 chance of mortality, but she would have died without surgery. Thankfully she survived the op and is now stable in ICU, but the prognosis for the future is unknown. I really appreciate your kind support. Nick